don't forget that Saddam had put out a bounty on 'Dubya's' daddy during the first gulf war.

I don't doubt that punishing an unfaithful vassal (Saddam Hussein) figured into the equation there. But the main reason we're in Iraq is for the oil. And make no mistake--we're still in Iraq up to our noses, regardless of what the corporate media here in the U.S. claim. For starters, we built a highly fortified embassy compound the size of The Vatican. We have mercenaries (i.e., Blackwater, or whatever name it goes by nowadays) providing security. Same tactic the Roman Empire used in its declining days to hold on to as much as it could for as long as it could.

My point was that there are two sides to every story. A lot of Muslim countries are anti-American, but that is only because of the crap we've been pulling on them. Men like Bin Laden were using that as leverage. People go to such extremes when they feel they don't have any other choice. The leaders of the Taliban are evil men that are taking advantage of desperate people. Playing the blame game is a powerful tool. The Nazi party pointed their fingers at the Jews, and look what happened...

I do agree that a person shouldn't be judged because of their religion. I've known intelligent Christians that I could have a civil and insightful conversation with. On the other hand, I've met a few that I wanted to smack upside the head with their precious Bible in the hopes I'd beat some sense into them. I mean, seriously, Harry Potter promotes Satanism? *headdesk* The same goes for Pagans, and any other religion. It's the individual person, and what they do with their chosen religion's teachings. Unfortunately, Islam has been painted with a very large brush as being all bad, and there are lots of ignorant people out there who believe it without question.

I don't know anything about the movie in question, but I do know that when someone strongly believes in their faith, they don't take well to being insulted. Add the insult to the powder keg that is the Middle East right now and what did the makers of this movie think was going to happen? Heck, maybe that was even their goal, as sick as that might sound. It proves them right, that Muslims are crazy and violent.

And have we so quickly forgotten what are own American Christians have been doing? The evil Satanist liberals want to allow gay marriage and force a poor Christian employer to offer health insurance that covers the devil's birth control. Yep, some of the laws people want to pass go against Christian beliefs, so some of the more devout have been screaming religious discrimination. Oh, yes, should I go work for Wendys I have no right to make that poor owner give me, a Pagan, birth control because it's against his beliefs. I mean, my god is absolutely fine with it, and it would be me taking the birth control, but making him pay for it with the rest of the health insurance is trampling all over his religious freedom. *sighs*

Taliban.. Former US backed freedom fighters left bereft of funds for rebuilding their country after the evil wicked Russians were run out. Bin Laden and his merry Men. Ditto. Saddam.. backed by the US to combat 'evil Iran' rather than trying to work with the local countries to approach it another way.

Seeing a trend here? This is the fall out of Cold War 'barrier' diplomacy and broken promises. I'm surprised that some of the faction that the Syrian government hasn't tried to make a play. Take away money and leave these sort of men high and dry..they WILL turn on you.

We didn't restore a functional system in Afganistan (Charlie Wilson pushed for it but we the US was all 'Misson Accomplished) so along came the Taliban.. with guns, training and the willingness to put down anyone that opposed them. Duh.

Bin Laden lost power and standing.. so yeah, when it can time to kick us as a way to be the modern Saladin..he did it. Had he been a BIT smarter and gotten a country under his control, things would have been different.

Saddam wanted what a LOT of leaders in that part of the world wanted. A united Islamic state under his flag. Kuwait would have been the first of many. Jordan or some other gulf country would have been next.

As for us 'pulling out', of course we aren't completely done. Due to piss poor planning and even worse implementation we allowed some of the most radical elements of the Islamic world into Iraq. It will be DECADES before they are a democratically stable country, and without help from outside their borders (like us), there will be more blood.

To simply assume that the radical Islamists are the only ones out there is foolish, short sighted and denying the truth of things. We put the guns and money in their hands. Not this year, last year.. or the last decade but over the last half century or more. Read your history, and look at things. We had a hand in making the mess because it wasn't 'our country' and what wouldn't fly here was okay there.

I know a lot of followers of Mohammed, all told about 3 dozen or so not including the HUNDREDS I've met in service to my country. You want to fix the problem, look to support the ones who speak of peace. There are something like five to ten Ayotollahs who speak for tolerance and peace. (I think a few of them have died of old age in the last 2 years), why don't we hear about the suffering they and their families suffer? Or look for groups aside from Hammas and the Muslim Brotherhood who could lead the more moderate areas of teh secular Arab world?

We empower them by opposition and do damn little to empower others by supporting their more tolerant rivals.

This clusterfuck was the result of nearly 70 years of Western/Soviet barrier politics.. do you honestly think we could fix it in a handful of years?

Particularly considering we aren't looking for allies among the peacemakers. I don't blame the moderates in the Gulf and Arab nations for laying low and keeping quiet. They are alone in their struggle.

"Particularly considering we aren't looking for allies among the peacemakers. "

Interesting quote,

Typically most government approaches is to empower the opposite of what annoys you most, but this only leads to the pendulum.

Empowering the workable balance that is moderate from the get go when faced with an extreme situations (ie whatever "the balance", not an extreme view) ?Not so easy in a democracy, as awkwardly you cant get votes from any that are "polar passionate" about the issue, and with "two party system" for democracy, shadow and elect (ie each the devils advocate almost as a principal), giving power and opportunities to those who are a workable balance would need an impressive Charismatic force behind it.

Wonder what happens when that or "love you anyway BEFORE you prove it, regardless of your beliefs or the past" does ?

"Particularly considering we aren't looking for allies among the peacemakers. "

Interesting quote,

Typically most government approaches is to empower the opposite of what annoys you most, but this only leads to the pendulum.

Empowering the workable balance that is moderate from the get go when faced with an extreme situations (ie whatever "the balance", not an extreme view) ?Not so easy in a democracy, as awkwardly you cant get votes from any that are "polar passionate" about the issue, and with "two party system" for democracy, shadow and elect (ie each the devils advocate almost as a principal), giving power and opportunities to those who are a workable balance would need an impressive Charismatic force behind it.

Wonder what happens when that or "love you anyway BEFORE you prove it, regardless of your beliefs or the past" does ?

It's true.. we don't back the folks who want to be self-reliant and independent. They aren't the folks we back, we back people like Saddam and Anwar Sadat and the Shah of Iran. People interested in qenuine democracy and self determination like the moderate Ayatollahs I mentioned earlier..

Feels no matter how good ones argument or reasons one has, it seems really hard to escape the "duality dance", trying just makes you invisible and frustrated, if you wish to dance with others like you.

Tangent / semi-off topic

The awkward irony is (to one that only has a laymen grasp of history) is that those who "found another way out of the duality dance and was charismatic enough to gravitate a following" are main characters or founders of "religions", which inevitably are inflicted with their own internal duality schools of beliefs.

Interesting to hear those who know of exceptions, or enough about religious history or religions generally to correct this assertion, like does Buddism have splits "duality schools" ? (I recall there was another splinter group that believed in another deli-lama (forgive the spelling), if so do they get along ? The reason why Buddhism I wanted to use as an example as I though it was one that attempted to escape "duality issues" or "objective meaning" and focused on the in-between states where one doesn't have vested interest in one side of a situation or another, and disassociates the "self" and intentions from experience, and developes meditation methods to do so etc

Hmm side issue though , if that doesnt interest many just ignore that rambling.

I think there are key differences between Muslims and the other faiths, Muhammad is the only religious leader who lead his faith from the point of a sword. I think that creates a very different outlook on faith then almost any other. Crimes have been committed in the name of peaceful faiths since the beginning of time but none have promoted violence like the Muslims do.

Jesus Christ died for our sins, he believed all people could be saved, Moses never engaged in violence himself to save his people, Buddha Gautama tossed away all possessions and discovered enlightenment, and the list goes on.

Muhammad alone believed in violence in the name of god and claims god supports violence for the sake of oneness no matter how many beautiful aspects exist in the Qur'an, I dont think it can remove that taint because it exists in the core of its faith. There are no less than 109 verses that call for war against non believers in their book of faith and while Christianty has violent verses its in historical or storytelling context the Quran does not have that, its open ended and preaches eternal war until all exists under their faiths banner.

Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Muhammad led his people too Mecca and he led them in war against the native peoples. HE did it, not a Muslim king but the prophet himself.

Kid Jesus turned other kids into salty trees that would never bear fruit or leaves, struck men blind for trying to discipline him, and as an adult he chased people away from a market in his fathers home with a spurred whip. And your not going to find the first two in many modern Bibles >.>

I don't really know Muhammad's deal, but unless he's almost exclusively a sword swinging diety of vengeance and rule by might, then I don't think he's much different then Jesus. Just a collaborations of other peoples very different ideas of a fictional figure, being pruned over the years to not resemble a schizophrenic.

3. And the son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Joseph; and he took a willow branch, and let out the waters which Jesus had collected. And Jesus, seeing what was done, was angry, and said to him: O wicked, impious, and foolish! What harm did the pools and the waters do to you? Behold, even now you shall be dried up like a tree, and you shall not bring forth either leaves, or root, or fruit. And straightway that boy was quite dried up. And Jesus departed, and went to Joseph's house. But the parents of the boy that had been dried up took him up, bewailing his youth, and brought him to Joseph, and reproached him because, said they, you have such a child doing such things.

Quote from: Still NA.org

5. And Joseph called the child apart, and admonished Him, saying: Why do you do such things, and these people suffer, and hate us, and persecute us? And Jesus said: I know that these words of yours are not your own; nevertheless for your sake I will be silent; but they shall bear their punishment. And straightway those that accused Him were struck blind. And those who saw it were much afraid and in great perplexity, and said about Him: Every word which he spoke, whether good or bad, was an act, and became a wonder. And when they saw that Jesus had done such a thing, Joseph rose and took hold of His ear, and pulled it hard. And the child was very angry, and said to him: It is enough for you to seek, and not to find; and most certainly you have not done wisely. Do you not know that I am yours? Do not trouble me.

Actually there is a few books of the bible that were 'lost' over time because the material supported 'heritical' thought or ran counter to what the growing church wanted.

There is an entire book covering the life of Jesus as a child in Egypt.. (the kids being turned to trees and killing of one of his teachers if I recall rightly come from that.)

Even among the 'established' books of the Bible there are 'lost segments' that ran counter to early church dogma.

Those books were never lost, they were removed by force because they held gnostic leanings they hold no more weight than anything else and have just as much bias as any other aspect of the bible, what matters to me is the core of the faith and the core of the Christian faith is not ideals of violence.

Thomas the Israelite is the supposed author of those gospels. From the sources I have seen on that particular gospel, the work was written in response to Christians wanting more miracles and “poof” out of their religion. The work goes through various sections including many miracles, more than a lot of other works and is far more fantastical than the other gospels. While a lot of conspiracy surrounds gospels removed from the printed Bible, sometimes they really were removed because they were not appropriate or part of the teachings of the Church. While I do hate referencing Wiki, the information I have seen on a simple overview states the author was not even familiar with Jewish tradition.

The Christian faith was built on ideals of peaceful protest and revolution. Jesus is certainly a figure of peaceful revolt and non-violence throughout the gospels. Certainly the message may become lost or muddled through leaders and politics, but the New Testament is definitely pointing toward a kinder and gentler God. In fact one of the reasons Jesus was not accepted as the Messiah by the Jewish people was that he was not a warlord or marching at the head of an army.

Thomas the Israelite is the supposed author of those gospels. From the sources I have seen on that particular gospel, the work was written in response to Christians wanting more miracles and “poof” out of their religion. The work goes through various sections including many miracles, more than a lot of other works and is far more fantastical than the other gospels. While a lot of conspiracy surrounds gospels removed from the printed Bible, sometimes they really were removed because they were not appropriate or part of the teachings of the Church. While I do hate referencing Wiki, the information I have seen on a simple overview states the author was not even familiar with Jewish tradition.

The Christian faith was built on ideals of peaceful protest and revolution. Jesus is certainly a figure of peaceful revolt and non-violence throughout the gospels. Certainly the message may become lost or muddled through leaders and politics, but the New Testament is definitely pointing toward a kinder and gentler God. In fact one of the reasons Jesus was not accepted as the Messiah by the Jewish people was that he was not a warlord or marching at the head of an army.

Those books were never lost, they were removed by force because they held gnostic leanings they hold no more weight than anything else and have just as much bias as any other aspect of the bible, what matters to me is the core of the faith and the core of the Christian faith is not ideals of violence.

"I bring not peace but a sword." Matthew 10:34.

And let's see.. at the time of the crusades the nations of Islam were fairly highly cultured nations who tolerated other faiths (generally prefering to tax them at higher rates than doing the things the Catholic Church did to Jews and others in their domans)

Don't tell me Christianity is a faith of peace, it's road is at LEAST as bloody as Islam's. And just as harsh on it's followers and opponents.

The old phrase.. 'Kill them all and let god sort them out?'. That came out of Christian on Christian violence. Albigensian Crusade if I recall.

Plus The New Testament being nicer has never been true -.- Maybe a chiller Jesus, but God himself remains just as barbaric and egotistical, there's just more nice chapters to quote, which only make it more inconsistent.

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. (Matthew 10:34–39 NASB)”

Jesus is talking about revolution. Keep in mind that the type of death Jesus suffered was one reserved for traitors to the Roman Empire. He was not charged with blasphemy, but with inciting a revolution. Jesus was warning them, telling them that his message and path would not be easy. He was telling them that they would come into conflict with their families. I do not see him telling people to cut down others or kill people.

This quote is not referencing violence at all, its stating quite plainly that love must be for Christ (AKA:god) above all other things, if you read the whole passage the statement never references other faiths or a group of people but instead ones own family. Christ was never for violence. He never led an army he never supported the death of the Romans who took his life.

What you fail to realize is that any faith can be picked up by a dictator and used for evil. So can anything else. Christianity is born in the bosom of charity and self sacrifice. The Muslim faith is born in the blood of war.

Christian fault lies in the hands of man, Muslim faults lie in the hands of its core beliefs

This quote is not referencing violence at all, its stating quite plainly that love must be for Christ (AKA:god) above all other things, if you read the whole passage the statement never references other faiths or a group of people but instead ones own family. Christ was never for violence. He never led an army he never supported the death of the Romans who took his life.

What you fail to realize is that any faith can be picked up by a dictator and used for evil. So can anything else. Christianity is born in the bosom of charity and self sacrifice. The Muslim faith is born in the blood of war.

Christian fault lies in the hands of man, Muslim faults lie in the hands of its core beliefs

So, a faith where we must blindly love God above all others, even at the cost of our own happiness and even our lives, is a morally sound religion twisted by humans, but Islam is just plain old wrong to the core?

Yeah, sounds great to me. I understand trying to weigh the two up to see where they're coming from, how they've diverged and changed and then compare them, but I really cannot take the 'one > other' argument seriously. Christianity might have more moral and right tidbits then Islam, and maybe it has a more consistent core to it, but is it a good belief to base your life off of? Hell no.

So, a faith where we must blindly love God above all others, even at the cost of our own happiness and even our lives, is a morally sound religion twisted by humans, but Islam is just plain old wrong to the core.

Of course it should be? Even if god is a figment of our imaginations our brief existence would be so much better, I mean selfishness, the belief that you and your family matter more than anything else is what causes all the evil in this world if more people sacrificed everything to achieve this purity. This would be a better place. The drive of god produces more charity than any other existence.

I doubt gods existence, but I will never doubt the good the belief in god does. Those are the people out there trying to save the world while we sit on our ass and judge the world.